On Wednesday 13 April 2005 11:22 pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In any case, the two obvious contenders for inheriting this responsibility
> would be debian-admin and debian-alpha; the former being the ones that
> listed lully's status as "no response from local admin", and the latter
> having received no communication from anyone about this issue. In fact, it
> seems I had more information about lully's status than DSA did, and only
> because I had talked with Adam Heath about it on IRC. If there's work that
> needs doing, I'm happy to help, but it's certainly not as if this was
> something the "alpha folks" dropped the ball on -- until now, there was
> never any reason to think it was our ball...
I was just reacting defensively to Andreas pointing the Alpha problem in
Brainfood's direction. We're doing what we can to help and we've even done
some physical repair on that machine but we aren't prepared to take up active
development on Alpha. What you've pointed out sort of drives the point home.
We don't like having a big dead Alpha taking up rack space. We'd rather have a
big happy Alpha compiling packages and making its space consumption a useful
phenomena. I don't know how we were "unresponsive", Adam is usually a fixture
on IRC and I've been around more steadily myself. I've never received an
email about Lully. Adam may have corresponded with someone.
If someone's idea of unresponsive is us saying "root disk is dead and we don't
have time to figure out an Alpha install" then that may explain the current
status.
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com